Case: 17-10673 Date Filed: 02/11/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10673
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-01103-BJD-JBT
ROBERT CRAIG MACLEOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RAUL A. ZAMBRANO,
Honorable Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 11, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-10673 Date Filed: 02/11/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Robert Craig Macleod, proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Judge Raul A. Zambrano of the Seventh
Judicial Circuit of Florida for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Macleod’s
complaint challenged the state court’s entry of an order declaring him a vexatious
litigant and subjecting his filings to various restrictions. Macleod argues that the
district court erred in dismissing his case, and that Judge Zambrano is not entitled
to judicial immunity. After review, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s finding that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional rule that precludes federal district
courts from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state court judgments.
Nicholson v. Shaffe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court
has explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-
court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered
before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review
and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1522 (2005). The doctrine applies both to
claims already adjudicated by a state court and those claims “inextricably
intertwined” with a state court’s judgment. Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260. A claim
brought in federal court is “inextricably intertwined” with a state court judgment if
2
Case: 17-10673 Date Filed: 02/11/2019 Page: 3 of 3
it would “effectively nullify” the state court judgment or if it “succeeds only to the
extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues.” Id. The doctrine does not
apply “where a party did not have a reasonable opportunity to raise his federal
claim in state proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Macleod sought to have the district court review—and nullify—the state
court’s order declaring him a vexatious litigant and subjecting him to various filing
restrictions. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court did not have
jurisdiction to consider Macleod’s § 1983 complaint. Macleod is a “state-court
loser” who complains of the injuries caused by the state court’s order and seeks the
district court’s rejection of that judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at
284, 125 S. Ct. at 1522. Macleod’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the
state court judgment because his case “succeeds only to the extent that the state
court wrongly decided the issues.” See Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260. Further,
Macleod had a “reasonable opportunity to bring his federal claim in state
proceedings” because, under the vexatious litigant order, he was still allowed to
file a claim in state court if he was represented by counsel and paid fees. See id.
Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Macleod’s claim, we need
not address whether Judge Zambrano was entitled to judicial immunity.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3